English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This question already has an answer here:

I recently asked for a change to some project's documentation, to change this sentence:

By default, Pyramid enables no authorization policy.

It felt awkward, and it caused me to pause while reading, so I changed it to:

Pyramid does not enable any authorization policy by default.

Are both forms correct?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by tchrist, cornbread ninja 麵包忍者, coleopterist, Kris, Kristina Lopez Mar 11 '13 at 18:06

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

What about: No authorization policy is enabled by default – Inbar Rose Mar 10 '13 at 15:46

Both are equally legit:

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

vs (the more stuffy)

There is not such a thing as a free lunch.

Jane Eyre - Chapter 14

You ought to have replied no such thing.

Jane Eyre - Chapter 34

There are no such things as marble kisses or ice kisses, ..

One of the statements of the hippocratic oath translated in English:

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

An equally legit translation:

I will ... and do NO harm to anyone.

It depends on whether the documentation policies of your software product would enforce formal and more stuffy language patterns or would encourage more colloquial expressions.

I don't do no harm to nobody.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.